Friday, June 28, 2013

My thanks to a loyal reader who alerted me to the demise of a beloved 50 year old cherry tree in Flixton (Greater Manchester).

For why?

Nanny's local authority inspectors had deemed that it had 'outgrown' its location and was an 'unsuitable species for the highway'.

Fearing health and safety issues, if the tree fell over because of its fungal infection, Trafford council chopped the tree down (without giving the residents any notice) at a cost of £1,500.

Trafford Council is unmoved by the complaints and is currently undertaking a major felling programme of mature trees located on main roads, and has identified 1,500 trees that could be removed from 80 roads.

"The reason for the works to the cherry tree were that after inspection there was evidence of a number of root decay fungi brackets at its base.
'The fungi in the tree would have rotted the roots leaving it unstable and eventually falling over without any warning, this risk is greater when it is in full leaf as the tree has a larger sail.
'Therefore the tree was felled on safety grounds.'"

Thursday, June 27, 2013

I understand that a particularly popular show on Auntie's network is The Voice (something that I have never watched, nor ever intend to watch).

Apparently this show attracts an audience of around 7-8 million.

The final, shown last Saturday, attracted a grand total of 139 complaints about the plunging cleavage of someone called Holly Willoughby (who?).

Roughly speaking 139 as a percentage of 7.5 million is less than 0.002%, yet Auntie kowtowed to the "pressure" and (after spending time, effort and licence payers' money on meetings and discussions) issued an apology:

"We're sorry if some viewers found Holly's dress to be unsuitable.

Holly enjoys fashion and we felt the dress she wore for the live
final of The Voice UK was glamorous and wholly appropriate for the
occasion."

May I ask why people who choose to watch shite are in the slightest bit surprised when they end up being "offended" by something within the programme?

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

My commiserations to the good people of Monmouthshire, who are to be limited to putting out two bin bags of rubbish a
fortnight in an attempt to make them recycle more.

For why?

The council's non-recyclables limit is the strictest in Wales; as it aims for recycling rates of 58% by 2015/16. Unsurprisingly, according to the BBC, more than 1,000 people have signed an online petition against the limit.

However, if the council is to be believed (who actually believes what their local council tells them?) they are in something of a bind; for they cannot afford to keep paying
millions of pounds in landfill tax, nor fines for missing recycling
targets.

Q: Why do the government/EU fine councils for not hitting recycling targets?

A: Because governments need money to function, and fining councils (which then pass on the fines to us) is an easy way to raise revenue.

The council believes up to 70% of what is thrown away is recyclable or food waste.

Belief is one thing, but facts are more often than not another.

That being said frankly speaking (to mount my hobby horse....can I say "mount" at this hour?) wasting food is a disgrace, most especially as there are so many people in the UK who are clearly eating too much anyway compared with the millions who starve elsewhere.

Has no one heard of bubble and squeak??

At some stage the profligacy of food in this country will be brought to a juddering halt. We are an island and cannot grow enough to feed ourselves; ie we rely on imports, which are becoming ruinously expensive as staple food prices (rice, grains etc) rise in response to lower yields and rising demand from a wealthier Asia Pacific.

Anyhoo, disregarding the fact that market forces will correct what Nanny's interference won't wrt food waste, the simple fact is that an average household (wasteful or not) will generally produce more than two bin bags of waste in a fortnight.

Monmouthshire has form for being bin fascists, in April, plans for clear bin bags that would have allowed
the council to check on what people throw away were scrapped following
opposition.

Whatever happens, one thing can be certain the good people of Monmouthshire will be fined for every "breach" of Nanny's rules.

"It just seems so pathetic and petty.
We bought it as a surprise present for Scarlett's fifth birthday last
year.

We fitted it out with carpets and curtains, and painted it in bright colours.

Scarlett was so excited when she first saw it – she almost cried with joy.

She would sit with her friends in her new house after school, and have her dinner in there."

She said her neighbours' kids used to love playing in the garden too.

"We're all being told we should get kids active and
out in the fresh air, yet their play equipment is being taken away.

We four neighbours suggested to the council we could draw up a legal document saying we would exclude the council from any responsibility if there were any injuries, but they don't seem to want to know."

A spokeswoman for Tandridge District Council said:

"The
trampoline and Wendy House have been placed on land which is owned by
the council and should be available to all leaseholders to use.

We have not given permission for the land to be used in this way and we cannot risk anyone being injured on the land.

We would not consider a joint waiver because it would still be
our land and our responsibility and open to anyone to use, which means
we would be liable for any health and safety issues."

What a prison we have built for ourselves under the "benign rule" of Nanny!

Channel 4's Dispatches, scheduled for tonight at 20:00, may prove to be rather interesting:

"Dispatches exposes the shocking story of Britain's secret police and
how undercover officers reportedly used sex and lies to spy on members
of the public.

The programme reveals the names of high-profile targets spied on by the police.

Through
the personal testimony of a whistleblower who operated deep undercover
for four years, the film examines the ethically dubious tactics of a
clandestine unit within the Metropolitan police.

Tasked with
infiltrating political campaigns and protest groups, it operated under
the unofficial motto 'By any means necessary'.

The programme
speaks exclusively to the women who say their lives have been wrecked
after being spied upon; and who reveal how they were duped into sexual
relationships with men they didn't even know were cops.

One of the women reveals the heart-wrenching story of how she was also deceived into having a child with a police spy."

Saturday, June 22, 2013

When Max Kelly, the chief security officer for Facebook, left the social
media company in 2010, he did not go to Google, Twitter or a similar
Silicon Valley concern. Instead the man who was responsible for
protecting the personal information of Facebook’s more than one billion
users from outside attacks went to work for another giant institution
that manages and analyses large pools of data: the National Security Agency.

Friday, June 21, 2013

As loyal readers know, Nanny and her chums will do anything in their power to screw this country's hapless citizens out of as much money as possible.

Up until now this "milch cow" approach was under the guise of Nanny's rule of "law", now it seems that Nanny has gone one step further and is happy to gather such tithes illegally and outwith the rule of law.

Step forward the thieving bastards from Newham Council, who have happily been issuing illegal parking tickets over the last two years based on "evidence" garnered from a dozen cameras that have not been authorised by the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).

The BBC reports that Newham Council knows that between 2011 and 2013 it issued 6,840 tickets from unauthorised
cameras - making £350,000.

By law, only camera models that have been specifically authorised by the VCA can be used by councils. Otherwise authorities might use cameras that are not of a high enough calibre to be relied upon for evidence. However, Newham Council was using cameras that did not have approval.

The council has now cancelled all the parking tickets that were unpaid, writing off a total of £347,376. However, it is refusing to refund those drivers who settled the unlawful fines straight away.

A Newham Council spokesman said:

"An internal review in June
2013 of 169 cameras operated by Newham Council found that 12 cameras
used to issue parking tickets were not fully certified at that time.

The council has decided that all outstanding fines from tickets issued via these cameras will be cancelled.The cameras recorded vehicle use which was liable for enforcement.

As other councils have established in law when involved in
similar cases on a much larger scale, we will therefore not be allowing
appeals on tickets paid in relation to these cameras."

Ker Farking Ching!

Newham council are thieving bastards, happy to enforce the law in order to extract money from local residents but refusing to obey the law when it comes to its own behaviour and criminal activity.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

I am perplexed and irked to see that, despite Nanny's many rules regulations and pc attitude, ageism is alive and well and being promulgated by a professional firm that should know better.

Step forward Sage (that has been "in the business of helping businesses manage their finances, people,
customers and suppliers and to plan for future success since 1981") which has decreed the following:

"The pace of change within the
profession has accelerated and created an environment where ‘Generation
Y’ accountants are best placed to respond to the changing role and
demands, according to the latest Pulse research from Sage."

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

What is the one service that councils are responsible for, that we all use or interact with (whether we are residents or visitors)?

Refuse collection and street cleaning!

This is the one service, above all others, that councils cannot afford to screw up if they don't want to appear to be incompetent cretins.

Step forward Brighton's Green council (a copy of the Green manifesto promise from 2011 is proudly displayed above - observe the word "cleaner"), which has through incredible mismanagement and incompetence engulfed Brighton in yet another bin strike; this one has been going on for a week, and threatens to continue into next week.

"Here in the Green "paradise" of Brightonia the binmen have gone on strike.

Call me old fashioned, but the one service that councils provide that
absolutely everyone (resident and visitor) sees the results of, or comes
into contact with, is that of refuse collection and street cleaning; ie
it is the one service that the council really ought not to fark up!

Ironically councils throughout the land manage to fark it up on a regular basis!"

Welcome to Brighton!

As noted before many times on this site, councils are the enemies of the people!

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Oh dear it seems that Nanny has entered some sort of timewarp and reverted to the 1990's.

For why?

She has muddled up e-cigarettes (the popular and safe means of weaning oneself off fags) with the 1990's craze for E (a psychedelic drug).

Yes, Nanny Europe is threatening to ban e-fags, or rather classify them as a medicine, on the grounds that they might be harmful and that children will be lured into smoking by the sight of an adult looking like a complete wazzock "smoking" and posing with one of these things!

No self respecting child ever wants to emulate an adult who looks like a wazzock!

Monday, June 17, 2013

I am pleased to see that pubs in England and Wales
with no history of trouble will no longer be forced by local
authorities to install CCTV systems, that at least is what Nanny has said she wants.

The Information Commissioner had said it was seriously concerned by the number of new CCTV cameras being foisted on trouble free pubs; as such the Department for Communities and Local Government is to issue new guidance to licensing authorities.

The new code of practice is aimed at encouraging police and
local authorities to consider whether putting in new cameras is
"appropriate" in all cases.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

I am hugely gemused to read of the fun a games that High Peak Borough Council has had trying to stop swimmers taking a dip in the "Blue Lagoon" (a quarry pool at Harpur Hill near Buxton).

The
pool's turquoise waters are irresistible to swimmers, yet lurking beneath the tranquil surface lies hidden dangers including, but not limited to; an abandoned car, rubbish, dead animals and a pH level akin to bleach (this is in fact akin to the average British beach, except there seems to be no excrement in the "Blue Lagoon"!).

Last year the council erected (can I say "erected" before the watershed) warning signs, to no avail as swimmers kept taking a dip.

This year the council came up with a terrific wheeze, dye the water black to make it less appealing.

This, seemingly, has worked and the number of swimmers has decreased.

A High Peak Borough Council spokeswoman is quoted by the Telegraph:

“It has similar pH levels to
bleach and is extremely cold.

There are also a number of hazards, there was
a car abandoned in there and all sorts of rubbish, but it still looked a
lovely turquoise colour.

We are trying to find ways of discouraging people from finding it attractive.

There is already some anecdotal evidence that this is working as residents
said that over the weekend people were coming up as they normally do to swim
and then very quickly turning around again when they saw the water.”

I wonder if anyone had actually injured themselves whilst swimming this "lake"?

Irrespective of the foolhardiness or not of taking a dip there, I have to admire the British spunk being exhibited by those swimmers who were not afraid of the bleach or corpses!

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

I am gemused to see that as from 2015 (the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo) GCSEs will move from coursework and continuous assessment to exams at the end of two years.

Pupils will face more rigorous content, with those studying
English, for example, having to read a 19th-Century novel and a whole
Shakespeare play; then having to write an essay.

Gosh, is that not what I had to do all those years ago when I took my O Levels?

Progress is marked by the realisation and admission that sometimes what was done in the past was better than what we are doing in the present.

Amo
Amas
Amat
Amamus
Amant etc!

Caesar's De Bellum Gallico here we come!

Oh and by the way, with reference to the above clip, those who bemoan the fact that Faecesbook, Twatter et al have given bullies the chance to ply their evil ways really should remember that bullying has been around far longer the the internet and that kids can be right little gits to each other.

Monday, June 10, 2013

I see our old "chums" from Consensus Action on Salt and Health (Cash) are up in arms again about the "dangers" of salt.

I do wonder, given how many very real threats there are in the world that we should really be worried about, how it is a group of people have ganged up together to fret about salt; they must have very empty lives?

Anyhoo, it seems the latest "threat" from salt comes in the shape of biscuits such as "Butterkist". CASH are howling with anxiety that parents should not feed their kids too many biscuits, because they contain salt.

Amusingly some major brands seemingly contain more salt than chicken nuggets.

As per the Telegraph Asda’s fun size mini milk chocolate digestives were the worst offender, with
0.4g of salt per 25g bag. Sainsbury’s giant white chocolate and raspberry
cookies packed 0.39g per 60g biscuit. McVitie’s mini gingerbread men had
0.3g of salt for every 25g pack while its dark chocolate hobnobs delivered
0.2g per 19g biscuit.

For comparison, a Birds Eye fish finger contains 0.2g of salt per 28g finger.
A Sainsbury’s chicken nugget has 0.24g of salt per nugget. The adult
recommended daily allowance is 6g, but for under-threes it is just 2g.

Graham MacGregor, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Queen Mary,
University of London who by happenstance runs CASH said:

“With salt hidden in sweet foods as well, how can
parents be expected to prevent their children from eating too much, putting
them at risk of high blood pressure as adults?”

FFS!

Parents, if they have any commonsense, won't be feeding their kids these things night and day. In the event they are, it won't be the salt that kills them it will be their obesity.

On that note, if CASH is so worried about the salt, why don't the manufacturers simply add some more sugar to counterbalance the salt?

At this point I ask myself if only human beings were able to excrete excess salt in some way, like animals do; eg via sweat or their kidneys?

Saturday, June 08, 2013

As internet companies fall over themselves to claim that Nanny USA doesn't have direct access to their networks, I would advise you to look very carefully at how they phrase their statements; who is to say that there is not a "back passage"?

"One former government official and cybersecurity legal expert said
the companies are likely carefully parsing their words. This person said
it is likely that the government is able to get copies of data in
real-time or near real-time without accessing the Internet companies'
central servers.

The Internet companies didn't answer questions about these potential side doors into their data."

Meanwhile on this side of the Atlantic, Nanny UK is scrambling to assure us that GCHQ has not been accessing Nanny USA's data trawled from people's electronic communications.

Such is the modern world of technology, it gives us immense freedom to communicate but also has the power to enslave us!

Friday, June 07, 2013

Further to yesterday's article about the NSA collecting phone and internet records of US citizens, James Clapper director of US national intelligence has somewhat muddied the waters by stating that the policy only targets "non-US persons".

Errmm...sorry for being thick...but how does Nanny USA know the nationality of someone on the end of a phone or on a pc?

Anyone care to have a guess as to how Nanny can achieve this seemingly impossible feat?

The good news is that if Mr Clapper is telling the truth, then Nanny USA is only spying on foreigners.

Thursday, June 06, 2013

I see that USA Nanny has been happily spying on her own citizens without their knowledge.

The Guardian reports that the National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone
records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest
telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The
document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration
the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected
indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected
of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the
government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified
three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the
blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as
is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and
duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not
covered.

I am somewhat concerned that the mainstream media have expressed shock and surprise over this. The issue of surveillance by the state has been in the public domain for some time now; eg in April 2012 I warned you about project Stellar Wind (due to go live in September 2013):

"Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of
the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip
through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign,
and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be
up and running in September 2013.

Flowing through its servers and
routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of
communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell
phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data
trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and
other digital “pocket litter.”....

Wednesday, June 05, 2013

Despite the fact that ever since the human race evolved from the primeval swamp and women started having babies, whilst enduring plagues, famines, wars, drought etc, Nanny has decided that this whole "pregnancy thing" is way too risky.

Step forward the Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which has decreed that pregnant women should "play it safe" and avoid chemicals found in many
common household products.

On the list of "dangerous" products are; tinned foods, ready meals, shower gel and new cars.

The "rationale" for RCOG's advice is that, seemingly, no one really knows enough about the chemicals in these products to determine if they pose a risk or not.

Now they tell us!

However, in true Nanny style, RCOG then go on to say that it is unlikely that any of the
exposures are truly harmful for most babies
and, based on current evidence, it is impossible to give an accurate
assessment of risk.

So dare I ask, what was the farking point of publishing an alarmist piece of shite like this if there is no credible scientific evidence to back it up?

Tuesday, June 04, 2013

I have to say I couldn't help but guffaw (can I say "guffaw" before the watershed?) loudly at the story today about JD Wetherspoon being granted permission to open its first motorway pub, after being given the go-ahead at services on the M40.

The bar and restaurant will open at Extra in
Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, and will be allowed to serve booze between 08:00 and 01:00.

Suffice to say, on cue, a storm of "moral outrage" has erupted from various anti booze groups; eg Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, is quoted by the BBC:

"To
reduce alcohol-related harm, we have to reduce its availability, not
increase it. Opening a bar at a service station sends out completely the
wrong message if we are trying to prevent harm from alcohol-related
traffic accidents."

Errmm unless Sir Ian has been living in a cave for the last few centuries, he is surely aware that pubs and inns have been a staple feature of British roadsides since the wheel was invented. The modern form of transport (ie car) has not changed the fact that many fine pubs are placed on A roads, main roads and even humble backstreets (all accessible to, and used by, cars).

What is the difference between a pub on a road, or a pub on a motorway?

If you are stupid enough to drink and drive on an ordinary road, then you are stupid enough to do the same on a motorway.

Monday, June 03, 2013

I am saddened but not particularly surprised to see that growing up in the Nanny state, where parents abrogate their responsibility for bringing up their children to the state, has produced a generation of children who have no idea where food comes from.

A survey conducted by the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) of 27,500 five to sixteen year olds highlighted that approximately 33% of UK
primary pupils think cheese is made from plants, and 25% think fish
fingers come from chicken or pigs (given the ongoing scandal over processed foods, that may in fact be nearer to the mark!).

To add to the confusion, a large number of kids also seem to be under the delusion that pasta and bread are meat based products.

A further 10% think that spuds grow on bushes or trees.

Roy Ballam, education programme manager at BNF, is quoted by the BBC talking about BNF's Healthy Eating Week which aims "to start the process
of re-engaging children with the origins of food, nutrition and cooking,
so that they grow up with a fuller understanding of how food reaches
them and what a healthy diet and lifestyle consists of."

A spokesman for England's Department for Education said:

"We
want to encourage children to develop a love of food, cooking and
healthy eating that will stay with them as they grow up."

That's all very nice and dandy, but I learned about food and cooking from my parents and grandfather; not the state. Indeed on a Saturday morning my dad used to regularly take me to the local butcher's shop to see the carcasses hanging in the cold room and to watch the sausage machine at work.

These findings show that parents are failing in their primary responsibility in bringing up their children to have a basic understanding of how the world functions and how to feed themselves. It is not the role of the state to teach children how to feed themselves, just as it isn't the role of the state to teach children how to tie their own shoe laces or wipe their butts.

Cooking classes etc are fine and useful for developing an understanding of food groups, nutrition and hygiene etc. However, the basic understanding of where food comes from should start in the home; otherwise parents will have no role whatsoever in the upbringing of their own children!

Professional Networks

Google+ Badge

Latest Comments

Recent Tweets

Subscribe To Nanny Knows Best

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.The they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me,and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemoeller

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible

reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Visit "Nanny's Store" and buy from a stunning range of T-shirts, mugs, cards and other items; all showing the distinctive